Related
I'm trying to code a demonstration of compressed sensing for my final year project but am getting poor image reconstruction when using the Lasso algorithm. I've relied on the following as a reference: http://www.pyrunner.com/weblog/2016/05/26/compressed-sensing-python/
However my code has some differences:
I use scikit-learn to perform a lasso optimisation (basis pursuit) as opposed to using cvxpy to perform an l_1 minimisation with an equality constraint as in the article.
I construct psi differently/more simply, testing seems to show that it's correct.
I use a different package to read and write the image.
import numpy as np
import scipy.fftpack as spfft
import scipy.ndimage as spimg
import imageio
from sklearn.linear_model import Lasso
x_orig = imageio.imread('gt40.jpg', pilmode='L') # read in grayscale
x = spimg.zoom(x_orig, 0.2) #zoom for speed
ny,nx = x.shape
k = round(nx * ny * 0.5) #50% sample
ri = np.random.choice(nx * ny, k, replace=False)
y = x.T.flat[ri] #y is the measured sample
# y = np.expand_dims(y, axis=1) ---- this doesn't seem to make a difference, was presumably required with cvxpy
psi = spfft.idct(np.identity(nx*ny), norm='ortho', axis=0) #my construction of psi
# psi = np.kron(
# spfft.idct(np.identity(nx), norm='ortho', axis=0),
# spfft.idct(np.identity(ny), norm='ortho', axis=0)
# )
# psi = 2*np.random.random_sample((nx*ny,nx*ny)) - 1
theta = psi[ri,:] #equivalent to phi*psi
lasso = Lasso(alpha=0.001, max_iter=10000)
lasso.fit(theta, y)
s = np.array(lasso.coef_)
x_recovered = psi#s
x_recovered = x_recovered.reshape(nx, ny).T
x_recovered_final = x_recovered.astype('uint8') #recovered image is float64 and has negative values..
imageio.imwrite('gt40_recovered.jpg', x_recovered_final)
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post images yet so here is a link to the original zoomed image, the image recovered with lasso and the image recovered with cvxpy (described later):
https://imgur.com/a/LROSug6
As you can see not only is the recovery poor but the image completely corrupted - the colours seem to be negative and the detail from the 50% sample lost. I think I've managed to track down the problem to the Lasso regression - it returns a vector that, when inverse transformed, has values that are not necessarily in the 0-255 range as expected for the image. So the conversion to from dtype float64 to uint8 is rather random (e.g. -55 becomes 255-55=200).
Following this I tried swapping out lasso for the same optimisation as in the article (minimising the l_1 norm subject to theta*s=y using cvxpy):
import cvxpy as cvx
x_orig = imageio.imread('gt40.jpg', pilmode='L') # read in grayscale
x = spimg.zoom(x_orig, 0.2)
ny,nx = x.shape
k = round(nx * ny * 0.5)
ri = np.random.choice(nx * ny, k, replace=False)
y = x.T.flat[ri]
psi = spfft.idct(np.identity(nx*ny), norm='ortho', axis=0)
theta = psi[ri,:] #equivalent to phi*psi
#NEW CODE STARTS:
vx = cvx.Variable(nx * ny)
objective = cvx.Minimize(cvx.norm(vx, 1))
constraints = [theta#vx == y]
prob = cvx.Problem(objective, constraints)
result = prob.solve(verbose=True)
s = np.array(vx.value).squeeze()
x_recovered = psi#s
x_recovered = x_recovered.reshape(nx, ny).T
x_recovered_final = x_recovered.astype('uint8')
imageio.imwrite('gt40_recovered_altopt.jpg', x_recovered_final)
This took nearly 6 hours but finally I got a somewhat satisfactory result. However I would like to perform a demonstration of lasso if possible. Any help in getting the lasso to return appropriate values or somehow converting its result appropriately would be very much appreciated.
I have a problem with generating Perlin noise for my project. As I wanted to understand how to use library properly, I tried to follow step-by-step this page: https://medium.com/#yvanscher/playing-with-perlin-noise-generating-realistic-archipelagos-b59f004d8401
In first part, there is code:
import noise
import numpy as np
from scipy.misc import toimage
shape = (1024,1024)
scale = 100.0
octaves = 6
persistence = 0.5
lacunarity = 2.0
world = np.zeros(shape)
for i in range(shape[0]):
for j in range(shape[1]):
world[i][j] = noise.pnoise2(i/scale,
j/scale,
octaves=octaves,
persistence=persistence,
lacunarity=lacunarity,
repeatx=1024,
repeaty=1024,
base=0)
toimage(world).show()
I copy-paste it with small change at the end (toimage is obsolete) so I have:
import noise
import numpy as np
from PIL import Image
shape = (1024,1024)
scale = 100
octaves = 6
persistence = 0.5
lacunarity = 2.0
seed = np.random.randint(0,100)
world = np.zeros(shape)
for i in range(shape[0]):
for j in range(shape[1]):
world[i][j] = noise.pnoise2(i/scale,
j/scale,
octaves=octaves,
persistence=persistence,
lacunarity=lacunarity,
repeatx=1024,
repeaty=1024,
base=seed)
Image.fromarray(world, mode='L').show()
I tried a lot of diffrient modes, but this noise is not even close to coherent noise. My result is something like this (mode='L'). Could someone explain me, what am I doing wrong?
Here is the working code. I took the liberty of cleaning it up a little. See comments for details. As a final advice: When testing code, use matplotlib for visualization. Its imshow() function is way more robust than PIL.
import noise
import numpy as np
from PIL import Image
shape = (1024,1024)
scale = .5
octaves = 6
persistence = 0.5
lacunarity = 2.0
seed = np.random.randint(0,100)
world = np.zeros(shape)
# make coordinate grid on [0,1]^2
x_idx = np.linspace(0, 1, shape[0])
y_idx = np.linspace(0, 1, shape[1])
world_x, world_y = np.meshgrid(x_idx, y_idx)
# apply perlin noise, instead of np.vectorize, consider using itertools.starmap()
world = np.vectorize(noise.pnoise2)(world_x/scale,
world_y/scale,
octaves=octaves,
persistence=persistence,
lacunarity=lacunarity,
repeatx=1024,
repeaty=1024,
base=seed)
# here was the error: one needs to normalize the image first. Could be done without copying the array, though
img = np.floor((world + .5) * 255).astype(np.uint8) # <- Normalize world first
Image.fromarray(img, mode='L').show()
If someone comes after me, with noise library you should rather normalize with
img = np.floor((world + 1) * 127).astype(np.uint8)
This way there will not be any spots of abnormal colour opposite to what it should be.
I am aiming to perform a color correction based on a reference image, using color charts. As a personal goal, I'm trying to correct the colors of an image I previously modified. The chart has been affected by the same layers, of course:
Originals:
Manually modified:
I'm using the following function that I've written myself to get the matrix:
def _get_matrix_transformation(self,
observed_colors: np.ndarray,
reference_colors: np.ndarray):
"""
Args:
observed_colors: colors found in target chart
reference_colors: colors found on source/reference image
Returns:
Nothing.
"""
# case 1
observed_m = [observed_colors[..., i].mean() for i in range(observed_colors.shape[-1])]
observed_colors = (observed_colors - observed_m).astype(np.float32)
reference_m = [reference_colors[..., i].mean() for i in range(reference_colors.shape[-1])]
reference_colors = (reference_colors - reference_m).astype(np.float32)
# XYZ color conversion
observed_XYZ = cv.cvtColor(observed_colors, cv.COLOR_BGR2XYZ)
observed_XYZ = np.reshape(observed_colors, (observed_XYZ.shape[0] * observed_XYZ.shape[1],
observed_XYZ.shape[2]))
reference_XYZ = cv.cvtColor(reference_colors, cv.COLOR_BGR2XYZ)
reference_XYZ = np.reshape(reference_colors, (reference_XYZ.shape[0] * reference_XYZ.shape[1],
reference_XYZ.shape[2]))
# case 2
# mean subtraction in order to use the covariance matrix
# observed_m = [observed_XYZ[..., i].mean() for i in range(observed_XYZ.shape[-1])]
# observed_XYZ = observed_XYZ - observed_m
# reference_m = [reference_XYZ[..., i].mean() for i in range(reference_XYZ.shape[-1])]
# reference_XYZ = reference_XYZ - reference_m
# apply SVD
H = np.dot(reference_XYZ.T, observed_XYZ)
U, S, Vt = np.linalg.svd(H)
# get transformation
self._M = Vt.T * U.T
# consider reflection case
if np.linalg.det(self._M) < 0:
Vt[2, :] *= -1
self._M = Vt.T * U.T
return
I'm applying the correction like this:
def _apply_profile(self, img: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
"""
Args:
img: image to be corrected.
Returns:
Corrected image.
"""
# Revert gamma compression
img = adjust_gamma(img, gamma=1/2.2)
# Apply color correction
corrected_img = cv.cvtColor(img.astype(np.float32), cv.COLOR_BGR2XYZ)
corrected_img = corrected_img.reshape((corrected_img.shape[0]*corrected_img.shape[1], corrected_img.shape[2]))
corrected_img = np.dot(self._M, corrected_img.T).T.reshape(img.shape)
corrected_img = cv.cvtColor(corrected_img.astype(np.float32), cv.COLOR_XYZ2BGR)
corrected_img = np.clip(corrected_img, 0, 255)
# Apply gamma
corrected_img = adjust_gamma(corrected_img.astype(np.uint8), gamma=2.2)
return corrected_img
The result I'm currently getting if the transformation is done in BGR (just commented color conversion functions):
In XYZ (don't pay attention to the resizing, that's because of me):
Now, I'm asking these questions:
Is inverting gamma necessary in this case? If so, am I doing it correctly? Should I implement a LUT that works with other data types such as np.float32?
Subtraction of the mean should be done in XYZ on BGR color space (case 1 vs case 2)?
Is considering the reflection case (as in a rigid body rotation problem) necessary?
Is clipping necessary? And if so, are those the correct values and data types?
I've been trying to create a 2D map of blobs of matter (Gaussian random field) using a variance I have calculated. This variance is a 2D array. I have tried using numpy.random.normal since it allows for a 2D input of the variance, but it doesn't really create a map with the trend I expect from the input parameters. One of the important input constants lambda_c should manifest itself as the physical size (diameter) of the blobs. However, when I change my lambda_c, the size of the blobs does not change if at all. For example, if I set lambda_c = 40 parsecs, the map needs blobs that are 40 parsecs in diameter. A MWE to produce the map using my variance:
import numpy as np
import random
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib.pyplot import show, plot
import scipy.integrate as integrate
from scipy.interpolate import RectBivariateSpline
n = 300
c = 3e8
G = 6.67e-11
M_sun = 1.989e30
pc = 3.086e16 # parsec
Dds = 1097.07889283e6*pc
Ds = 1726.62069147e6*pc
Dd = 1259e6*pc
FOV_arcsec_original = 5.
FOV_arcmin = FOV_arcsec_original/60.
pix2rad = ((FOV_arcmin/60.)/float(n))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix = 1./pix2rad
x_pix = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,n)
y_pix = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_original/2/pix2rad/180.*np.pi/3600.,n)
X_pix,Y_pix = np.meshgrid(x_pix,y_pix)
conc = 10.
M = 1e13*M_sun
r_s = 18*1e3*pc
lambda_c = 40*pc ### The important parameter that doesn't seem to manifest itself in the map when changed
rho_s = M/((4*np.pi*r_s**3)*(np.log(1+conc) - (conc/(1+conc))))
sigma_crit = (c**2*Ds)/(4*np.pi*G*Dd*Dds)
k_s = rho_s*r_s/sigma_crit
theta_s = r_s/Dd
Renorm = (4*G/c**2)*(Dds/(Dd*Ds))
#### Here I just interpolate and zoom into my field of view to get better resolutions
A = np.sqrt(X_pix**2 + Y_pix**2)*pix2rad/theta_s
A_1 = A[100:200,0:100]
n_x = n_y = 100
FOV_arcsec_x = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)
FOV_arcmin_x = FOV_arcsec_x/60.
pix2rad_x = ((FOV_arcmin_x/60.)/float(n_x))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_x = 1./pix2rad_x
FOV_arcsec_y = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)
FOV_arcmin_y = FOV_arcsec_y/60.
pix2rad_y = ((FOV_arcmin_y/60.)/float(n_y))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_y = 1./pix2rad_y
x1 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x)
y1 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y)
X1,Y1 = np.meshgrid(x1,y1)
n_x_2 = 500
n_y_2 = 500
x2 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x_2)
y2 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y_2)
X2,Y2 = np.meshgrid(x2,y2)
interp_spline = RectBivariateSpline(y1,x1,A_1)
A_2 = interp_spline(y2,x2)
A_3 = A_2[50:450,0:400]
n_x_3 = n_y_3 = 400
FOV_arcsec_x = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)*400./500.
FOV_arcmin_x = FOV_arcsec_x/60.
pix2rad_x = ((FOV_arcmin_x/60.)/float(n_x_3))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_x = 1./pix2rad_x
FOV_arcsec_y = FOV_arcsec_original*(100./300)*400./500.
FOV_arcmin_y = FOV_arcsec_y/60.
pix2rad_y = ((FOV_arcmin_y/60.)/float(n_y_3))*np.pi/180.
rad2pix_y = 1./pix2rad_y
x3 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x_3)
y3 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y_3)
X3,Y3 = np.meshgrid(x3,y3)
n_x_4 = 1000
n_y_4 = 1000
x4 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_x/2/pix2rad_x/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_x_4)
y4 = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,FOV_arcsec_y/2/pix2rad_y/180.*np.pi/3600.,n_y_4)
X4,Y4 = np.meshgrid(x4,y4)
interp_spline = RectBivariateSpline(y3,x3,A_3)
A_4 = interp_spline(y4,x4)
############### Function to calculate variance
variance = np.zeros((len(A_4),len(A_4)))
def variance_fluctuations(x):
for i in xrange(len(x)):
for j in xrange(len(x)):
if x[j][i] < 1.:
variance[j][i] = (k_s**2)*(lambda_c/r_s)*((np.pi/x[j][i]) - (1./(x[j][i]**2 -1)**3.)*(((6.*x[j][i]**4. - 17.*x[j][i]**2. + 26)/3.)+ (((2.*x[j][i]**6. - 7.*x[j][i]**4. + 8.*x[j][i]**2. - 8)*np.arccosh(1./x[j][i]))/(np.sqrt(1-x[j][i]**2.)))))
elif x[j][i] > 1.:
variance[j][i] = (k_s**2)*(lambda_c/r_s)*((np.pi/x[j][i]) - (1./(x[j][i]**2 -1)**3.)*(((6.*x[j][i]**4. - 17.*x[j][i]**2. + 26)/3.)+ (((2.*x[j][i]**6. - 7.*x[j][i]**4. + 8.*x[j][i]**2. - 8)*np.arccos(1./x[j][i]))/(np.sqrt(x[j][i]**2.-1)))))
variance_fluctuations(A_4)
#### Creating the map
mean = 0
delta_kappa = np.random.normal(0,variance,A_4.shape)
xfinal = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,1000)
yfinal = np.linspace(-FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,FOV_arcsec_x*np.pi/180./3600.*Dd/pc/2,1000)
Xfinal, Yfinal = np.meshgrid(xfinal,yfinal)
plt.contourf(Xfinal,Yfinal,delta_kappa,100)
plt.show()
The map looks like this, with the density of blobs increasing towards the right. However, the size of the blobs don't change and the map looks virtually the same whether I use lambda_c = 40*pc or lambda_c = 400*pc.
I'm wondering if the np.random.normal function isn't really doing what I expect it to do? I feel like the pixel scale of the map and the way samples are drawn make no link to the size of the blobs. Maybe there is a better way to create the map using the variance, would appreciate any insight.
I expect the map to look something like this , the blob sizes change based on the input parameters for my variance :
This is quite a well visited problem in (surprise surprise) astronomy and cosmology.
You could use lenstool: https://lenstools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples/gaussian_random_field.html
You could also try here:
https://andrewwalker.github.io/statefultransitions/post/gaussian-fields
Not to mention:
https://github.com/bsciolla/gaussian-random-fields
I am not reproducing code here because all credit goes to the above authors. However, they did just all come right out a google search :/
Easiest of all is probably a python module FyeldGenerator, apparently designed for this exact purpose:
https://github.com/cphyc/FyeldGenerator
So (adapted from github example):
pip install FyeldGenerator
from FyeldGenerator import generate_field
from matplotlib import use
use('Agg')
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
plt.figure()
# Helper that generates power-law power spectrum
def Pkgen(n):
def Pk(k):
return np.power(k, -n)
return Pk
# Draw samples from a normal distribution
def distrib(shape):
a = np.random.normal(loc=0, scale=1, size=shape)
b = np.random.normal(loc=0, scale=1, size=shape)
return a + 1j * b
shape = (512, 512)
field = generate_field(distrib, Pkgen(2), shape)
plt.imshow(field, cmap='jet')
plt.savefig('field.png',dpi=400)
plt.close())
This gives:
Looks pretty straightforward to me :)
PS: FoV implied a telescope observation of the gaussian random field :)
A completely different and much quicker way may be just to blur the delta_kappa array with gaussian filter. Try adjusting sigma parameter to alter the blobs size.
from scipy.ndimage.filters import gaussian_filter
dk_gf = gaussian_filter(delta_kappa, sigma=20)
Xfinal, Yfinal = np.meshgrid(xfinal,yfinal)
plt.contourf(Xfinal,Yfinal,dk_ma,100, cmap='jet')
plt.show();
this is image with sigma=20
this is image with sigma=2.5
ThunderFlash, try this code to draw the map:
# function to produce blobs:
from scipy.stats import multivariate_normal
def blob (positions, mean=(0,0), var=1):
cov = [[var,0],[0,var]]
return multivariate_normal(mean, cov).pdf(positions)
"""
now prepare for blobs generation.
note that I use less dense grid to pick blobs centers (regulated by `step`)
this makes blobs more pronounced and saves calculation time.
use this part instead of your code section below comment #### Creating the map
"""
delta_kappa = np.random.normal(0,variance,A_4.shape) # same
step = 10 #
dk2 = delta_kappa[::step,::step] # taking every 10th element
x2, y2 = xfinal[::step],yfinal[::step]
field = np.dstack((Xfinal,Yfinal))
print (field.shape, dk2.shape, x2.shape, y2.shape)
>> (1000, 1000, 2), (100, 100), (100,), (100,)
result = np.zeros(field.shape[:2])
for x in range (len(x2)):
for y in range (len(y2)):
res2 = blob(field, mean = (x2[x], y2[y]), var=10000)*dk2[x,y]
result += res2
# the cycle above took over 20 minutes on Ryzen 2700X. It could be accelerated by vectorization presumably.
plt.contourf(Xfinal,Yfinal,result,100)
plt.show()
you may want to play with var parameter in blob() to smoothen the image and with step to make it more compressed.
Here is the image that I got using your code (somehow axes are flipped and more dense areas on the top):
I'm trying to implement Reinhard's method to use the color distribution of a target image to color normalize a passed in image for a research project. I've gotten the code to work and it outputs correctly but it's pretty slow. It takes about 20 minutes to iterate through 300 images. I'm pretty sure the bottleneck is how I'm handling applying the function to each image. I'm currently iterating through each pixel of the image and applying the functions below to each channel.
def reinhard(target, img):
#converts image and target from BGR colorspace to l alpha beta
lAB_img = cv2.cvtColor(img, cv2.COLOR_BGR2Lab)
lAB_tar = cv2.cvtColor(target, cv2.COLOR_BGR2Lab)
#finds mean and standard deviation for each color channel across the entire image
(mean, std) = cv2.meanStdDev(lAB_img)
(mean_tar, std_tar) = cv2.meanStdDev(lAB_tar)
#iterates over image implementing formula to map color normalized pixels to target image
for y in range(512):
for x in range(512):
lAB_tar[x, y, 0] = (lAB_img[x, y, 0] - mean[0]) / std[0] * std_tar[0] + mean_tar[0]
lAB_tar[x, y, 1] = (lAB_img[x, y, 1] - mean[1]) / std[1] * std_tar[1] + mean_tar[1]
lAB_tar[x, y, 2] = (lAB_img[x, y, 2] - mean[2]) / std[2] * std_tar[2] + mean_tar[2]
mapped = cv2.cvtColor(lAB_tar, cv2.COLOR_Lab2BGR)
return mapped
My supervisor told me that I could try using a matrix to apply the function all at once to improve the runtime but I'm not exactly sure how to go about doing that.
The original and the target：
Color transfer reuslts using Reinhard'method in 5 ms:
I prefer to implement the formulat in numpy vectorized operations other than python loops.
# implementing the formula
#(Io - mo)/so*st + mt = Io * (st/so) + mt - mo*(st/so)
ratio = (std_tar/std_ori).reshape(-1)
offset = (mean_tar - mean_ori*std_tar/std_ori).reshape(-1)
lab_tar = cv2.convertScaleAbs(lab_ori*ratio + offset)
Here is the code:
# 2019/02/19 by knight-金
# https://stackoverflow.com/a/54757659/3547485
import numpy as np
import cv2
def reinhard(target, original):
# cvtColor: COLOR_BGR2Lab
lab_tar = cv2.cvtColor(target, cv2.COLOR_BGR2Lab)
lab_ori = cv2.cvtColor(original, cv2.COLOR_BGR2Lab)
# meanStdDev: calculate mean and stadard deviation
mean_tar, std_tar = cv2.meanStdDev(lab_tar)
mean_ori, std_ori = cv2.meanStdDev(lab_ori)
# implementing the formula
#(Io - mo)/so*st + mt = Io * (st/so) + mt - mo*(st/so)
ratio = (std_tar/std_ori).reshape(-1)
offset = (mean_tar - mean_ori*std_tar/std_ori).reshape(-1)
lab_tar = cv2.convertScaleAbs(lab_ori*ratio + offset)
# convert back
mapped = cv2.cvtColor(lab_tar, cv2.COLOR_Lab2BGR)
return mapped
if __name__ == "__main__":
ori = cv2.imread("ori.png")
tar = cv2.imread("tar.png")
mapped = reinhard(tar, ori)
cv2.imwrite("mapped.png", mapped)
mapped_inv = reinhard(ori, tar)
cv2.imwrite("mapped_inv.png", mapped)
I managed to figure it out after looking at the numpy documentation. I just needed to replace my nested for loop with proper array accessing. It took less than a minute to iterate through all 300 images with this.
lAB_tar[:,:,0] = (lAB_img[:,:,0] - mean[0])/std[0] * std_tar[0] + mean_tar[0]
lAB_tar[:,:,1] = (lAB_img[:,:,1] - mean[1])/std[1] * std_tar[1] + mean_tar[1]
lAB_tar[:,:,2] = (lAB_img[:,:,2] - mean[2])/std[2] * std_tar[2] + mean_tar[2]